Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is my thing, I just want an explanation about why it's such a bad thing. Mulcair seems to have a very strong opinion that this would result in PP being told things that he should be talking about during question period or whatever, but then being required to keep quiet about them for security reasons. Contrary to the other posters dismissing his views, I actually have no trouble believing that Mulcair knows how this works and has a perfectly cogent point to make... So explain all that in detail. Where's the newspaper article I can read that sets out the case for why PP and Mulcair are right about this? Where is the PP written statement that goes through why a security clearance can be used in a political / strategic way to undermine the opposition leader's ability to do his job? I'm willing to read it and I'm willing to be convinced! Just convince me.
|
Not wanting security clearance makes sense if you’re in opposition and expect to stay that way (like Mulcair’s NDP). It means you’re unfettered in your freedom to attack the government.
It’s a bad look for a party leader who wants to become prime minister. It raises doubts about whether they’ll ever step up and become the adult in the room who has to put the security of the country first.